Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40809291›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in physiology2025

Targeting atrial fibrillation in HFpEF: the emerging role of pulsed field ablation.

A S Parwani, B Kossmann, V Schweiger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

A S ParwaniDeutsches Herzzentrum der Charité, Klinik/Institut, Berlin, Germany.
B KossmannDeutsches Herzzentrum der Charité, Klinik/Institut, Berlin, Germany.
V SchweigerDeutsches Herzzentrum der Charité, Klinik/Institut, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With a rising prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF), their frequent coexistence poses a growing clinical challenge for clinicians worldwide. HFpEF and AF share common risk factors and pathophysiological mechanisms, contributing to worsening cardiac function and remodeling. Traditional pharmacological rhythm control strategies often proved ineffective in heart failure patients, prompting increased interest in catheter ablation. Pulse Field Ablation (PFA), a novel non-thermal ablation technique utilizes irreversible electroporation and offers promising safety and efficacy advantages over conventional thermal methods by selectively targeting myocardial cells while minimizing collateral tissue damage. Early clinical data suggest that PFA may result in less atrial fibrosis and preserves atrial compliance, which could be particularly beneficial in HFpEF where diastolic function is central. Although ablation outcomes in HFpEF have been less extensively studied than in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), preliminary studies report low complication rates, improved hemodynamics, and ameliorated outcomes following ablation. Registry data and subanalyses of trials like EAST-AFNET4 support early rhythm control, while the ongoing CABA-HFpEF-DZHK27 trial aims to determine whether catheter ablation improves cardiovascular outcomes in this specific population. As PFA gains traction for its procedural efficiency and favorable safety profile, its role in managing AF in HFpEF may expand. However, further robust, randomized studies are necessary to define its long-term benefits and may establish PFA as a standard therapy in this complex patient cohort.

Indexed as

ablation for atrial fibrillationatrial fibrillationdiastolic dysfunctionheart failure with preserved ejection fractionHFpEFpulsed field ablation (PFA)

Identifiers

PMID40809291
PMCPMC12343524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.